DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim(s) 1,6,8,10 and 13 have been amended
Claim(s) 14,16 and 18-23 are cancelled
Claim(s) 24-41 have been newly added
Claim(s) 1,3-4,6-13,15 and 24-41 are pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,3-4, 6-9,11-13, 15,24-32,34-36 and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 2018/0348718 A1), in view of Boss et al. (US 2008/0176578 A1), further in view Sampson (US 2009/0253454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Richardson discloses a method (Richardson [Abstract] discloses a method for establishing a user state for each of the plurality of users corresponding to their location), comprising:
at a first device (fig. 1 – controller 102):
receiving (fig. 1 – controller 102 receives notification of a state change from accessories), mode information that identifies a mode of operation for a plurality of devices (Fig. 1, [0030], controller 102 receives notification of a state change from accessories such as a door lock 104, garage door system 106, light fixture 108, security camera 110, and thermostat 112 – State change information may be (On/Off)) in a geographical area (Home),
wherein the plurality of devices are connected to a network (Fig. 1- accessories connected to a smart home network – 100) (Richardson, figs. 1-3, [0033-0034] a protocol is provided to enable a notification mechanisms that allow accessory 112 (or other accessories) to selectively notify controller 102 in the event of a state change, thus providing the controller information that identifies a mode of operation of the accessories (e.g. On/Off) within the home, where the home defines the geographical area of interest. Fig. 2, [0039] controller 202(1) can be a home LAN connecting the controller and accessories 204 and coordinator 210); and
wherein the mode information includes a triggering action (i.e., user leaves home (no one is home)) environment or returns (Home is occupied or not empty); [0049]) which causes the plurality of devices to enter the mode (off electronic device 250 or lighting) of operation for the geographical area (Home) (Richardson fig. 3D, [0026; 0046; 0055] discloses a geo-fence (“virtual boundary” or “boundary” – e.g. – Home/room) which can be a virtual fence that a user can configure on their GPS-enabled smart device to trigger an action when the smart device (or other participating device) crosses the geo-fence. In this instance, the home operates in two modes, that is, either the home is empty or occupied. Therefore, a user entering the home is a trigger event that informs the controller that the operation mode of the geo-fence/home has changed. In response to the change in the operational mode of the geo-fence/home, the controller sends control signal to change the operational mode (e.g., turn on/off, change operational setting, etc.) of the accessories (e.g., lights, door locks, thermostat) in the home);
determining, (control device -102), first instructions to transmit to the plurality of devices upon entering the mode of operation (Richardson, fig. 3A – [0049] a smart light (accessory device 204(1)) is configured to turn on and off when a mobile device (controller 202(1)) crosses a geo-fence trigger. For example, when a user (resident) 340(1) leaves home environment 206 330 (e.g., by vehicle) with controller 202(1) and crosses geo-fence 330 (i.e., user 340(1) leaves the bounded region), indicating “no one is home” or “the home is empty”, a boundary-crossing signal may be sent from controller 202(1) to coordinator 210 that causes accessory 204(1) to automatically switch from an “on” state to an “off” state (or remain in an “off” state if it was already turned off));
receiving, (control device 102), an indication of an occurrence of the triggering action (crossing a geo-fence) (Richardson, fig. 3A – [0049] when a user (resident) 340(1) leaves home environment 206 330 (e.g., by vehicle) with controller 202(1) and crosses geo-fence 330 (i.e., user 340(1) leaves the bounded region), a boundary-crossing signal may be sent from controller 202(1) to coordinator 210 that causes accessory 204(1) to automatically switch from an “on” state to an “off” state (or remain in an “off” state if it was already turned off)));
in response to receiving the indication, transmitting, (sending control to switch the state of an accessary from “on” to “off”), to the plurality of devices (accessories), the first instructions (Richardson, fig. 3A – [0049] when a the controller 202(1) detects that a user (resident) 340(1) leaves home environment 206 330 (e.g., by vehicle) with controller 202(1) and crosses geo-fence 330 (i.e., user 340(1) leaves the bounded region), a boundary-crossing signal may be sent from controller 202(1) to coordinator 210 that causes accessory 204(1) to automatically switch from an “on” state to an “off” state (or remain in an “off” state if it was already turned off))).
Richardson did not explicitly disclose identifying, that a second device has arrived within the geographic area; in response to identifying that the second device has arrived within the geographic area: transmitting, the second device, a request for device information; receiving, from the second device, the device information; and after receiving the device information and in accordance with a determination, based at least in part on the device information, that the second device does not align with the mode of operation for the geographic area, causing the second device to display a prompt that suggests that at least one setting of the second device be changed to correspond to the mode of operation.
Boss discloses identifying (sensor 30 – transmit a signal to controller 40), (first device - controller 40), that a second device (cell phone 20) has arrived within the geographic area (censored zone 50) (Boss, fig. 1, [0019;0021;0030] When a person(s) or user(s) 10 having a pervasive device(s) 20, such as a cellular phone, enters a censored zone 50, such as a conference room, sensor(s) 30 within the zone 50 detect the presence of the device 20 and transmit a signal S containing the device's profile to the controller 40);
in response to identifying (Signal S indicating presence of a cell phone in the censored zone 50) that the second device (cell phone) has arrived within the geographic area (cell phone enters censored zone 50; fig. 1):
transmitting, to the second device (cell phone 20), a request for device information (device profile) (Boss, fig. 1, [0019;0021;0030] in response to cell phone 20 being detected by sensor 30 within a censored zone 50, a signal S at the controller 40, where the signal S indicates the detection of the presence of the cell phone 20 in the censored zone 50, the controller 40 communicate with the cell phone 20 through the sensor 30 to request and obtain a profile for the cell phone 20 when cell phone 20 is new);
receiving, from the second device (cell phone), the device information (cell phone/device profile) (Boss, fig. 1, [0019;0021;0030] in response determination that the type of device that just entered the censored zone 50 is a cell phone, the controller 40 receives the profile of the cell phone 20/device that just entered the censored zone 50, the controller 40 processes the device's profile by comparing it to the profile setting of the controller 40 as well as the profiles of other present devices),
after receiving the device information (cell phone/device profile) and in accordance with a determination (determination that the cell phone just entered the censored zone 50), based at least in part on the device information, that the second device does not align with the mode of operation for the geographic area (profile setting does not meet the authorization level for the mode of operation of the censored zone 50) (Boss, fig. 1, [0019;0021;0030] in response to receiving the profile of the cell phone 20/device that just entered the censored zone 50, the controller 40 processes the device's profile by comparing it to the profile setting of the controller 40 as well as the profiles of other present devices. If it is determined that the profile setting does not meet the authorization level for the mode of operation of the censored zone 50).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richardson and Boss because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for implementing and controlling the operation mode of mobile devices in a controlled environment/geo-fence.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Boss into the invention of Richardson. The motivation would have been to enable the use of a device audio profile to control the mode of operation of the mobile device to comply with a predefined authorized operating level/mode based on the device profile, Boss, [0021].
Boss generally discloses setting of the second device be changed to correspond to the mode (Boss, fig. 1, [0019;0021;0030] If it is determined that the profile setting does not meet the authorization level for the mode of operation of the censored zone 50, the controller 40 then outputs a control signal S to the sensors 30 based on the processed settings. The output from the controller 40 is used to change the mode of operation of the cell phone 20 to comply with the mode of operation required in the censored zone 50. The output from the controller 40 is used to change the mode of operation of the cell phone 20 such that, the phone operating mode is changed into a silent mode as determined by the controller while it is in the censored zone 50).
Richardson and Boss did not explicitly disclose “causing the second device to display a prompt”.
Sampson discloses ““causing the second device to display a prompt” (Sampson, figs. 3 & 11, [0051].
In particular, Sampson discloses causing the second device (mobile/cell phone) to display (fig. 11 – 1108) a prompt (Prompting user to confirm a mode change) that suggests that at least one setting of the second device (setting the mode of a cell phone in a car to driving mode) be changed to correspond to the mode (driving mode) (Sampson, figs. 3 & 11, [0051], discloses different operation modes of a cell phone based on the location (fig.3 – Work, library, church, car van, staff meeting, theater, etc.) of the cell phone. If the user of cell phone has a car which is equipped with a Bluetooth transceiver for various audio functions. The "in car" automode event entry indicates that when the device detects a Bluetooth signal from the given Bluetooth address (00:02:72:00:d4:1a) that the mode should be registered as "driving,", the operating mode of the cell phone may be changed to “driving” but only after first prompting the user on a user display interface 1108 asking the user for confirmation).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richardson, Boss and Sampson because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for implementing and controlling the operation mode of mobile devices in a controlled environment/geo-fence.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Sampson into the invention of Richardson and Boss. The motivation would have been to confirm from a mobile device user that the user is in a specific controlled geo-fence before changing operating mode of the mobile device, Sampson, [0051].
Regarding claim 3, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first device (102) is a resident device (Richardson, fig. 2, [0036; 0049] discloses each controller 202 can be an electronic device (e.g., smart phone, smart wearable, etc.) owned and/or operated by a user who frequents environment 206 (e.g., a resident of the home or a regular visitor to the home). Controllers 202 can each be similar to controller 102 of FIG. 1, and accessories 204 can be similar to various accessories shown in FIG. 1. ).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the second device is a mobile device (cell phone 20) (Boss, fig. 1, [0019;0021;0030] When a person(s) or user(s) 10 having a pervasive device(s) 20, such as a cellular phone, enters a censored zone 50, such as a conference room, sensor(s) 30 within the zone 50 detect the presence of the device 20 and transmit a signal S containing the device's profile to the controller 40).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of devices comprise an accessory or a controller or any combination thereof (Richardson [0030] discloses accessory devices to include, but are not limited to, a door lock 104, garage door system 106, light fixture 108, security camera 110, and thermostat 112. The controller 102 can communicate directly with an accessory; for instance, controller 102 is shown communicating directly with door lock 104 and garage door system 106. In other instances, controller 102 can communicate through an intermediary device).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the geographic area comprises a home (Richardson, fig. 3E, [0049, 0058] illustrates a geo-fence-triggered home automation system 300(5) configured for multiple users with different notification settings. Home automation system 300(5) can include home environment 206, coordinator 210 stationed within home environment 206, user 340(1) and corresponding controller 202(1) entering geo-fenced area 330, user 340(2) and corresponding controller 202(2) entering geo-fenced area 330 (corresponding to user 340(2)), and various accessory devices. Setting different levels of notification access for different users can be useful for managing privacy).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Richardson discloses a controller device (Richardson, fig. 1 discloses each controller 202 can be an electronic device (e.g., smart phone, smart wearable, etc.) owned and/or operated by a user who frequents environment 206 (e.g., a resident of the home or a regular visitor to the home). Controllers 202 can each be similar to controller 102 of FIG. 1, and accessories 204 can be similar to various accessories shown in FIG. 1), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to cause the controller device to (Richardson, [0114] Processing subsystem 930 can include, e.g., one or more single-core or multi-core microprocessors and/or microcontrollers executing program code to perform various functions associated with accessory 900. For example, processing subsystem 930 can implement various processes (or portions thereof) described above as being implemented by an accessory, e.g., by executing program code stored in storage device 928):
The rest of the limitations of claim 8 are rejected with rational similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the controller device of claim 8, disclose wherein the geographic area comprises a room within a home (Richardson [0090] discloses a user state within a location can simply indicate whether a user is “home” (at the specified location) or “away” (not at the specified location). The specified location can be a home, a portion of a home (e.g., a room, backyard, kitchen, etc.), an area defined by one or more geo-fenced areas (e.g., geo-fence 330), or the like).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the controller device of claim 8, wherein the geographic area is defined by a geofence (Richardson, fig. 4, [0061] A “geofence” can be defined relative to the location of local environment 206, e.g., within half a mile, within 100 feet, etc. Controllers 202 (or other user devices) that have the ability to determine their location (e.g., using Global Positioning Service (GPS) receivers or the like) can detect when they enter or leave the geo-fence. Controller 202 can test for a triggering condition in response to detecting that it has entered or left the geofence).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the controller device of claim 8, wherein the first instructions are based at least in part on one or more respective states (on/off, high or low temperatures) for one or more device characteristics of the plurality of devices (door lock 104, garage door system 106, light fixture 108, security camera 110, and thermostat 112) (Richardson [0033; 0055] discloses a protocol defined for message formats for controller 102 to send command-and-control messages (“requests” or “control signals”) to accessory 112 (or other accessories) and for accessory 112 to send response messages to controller 102. The command-and-control messages can allow controller 102 to interrogate the current state of accessory characteristics and in some instances to modify the characteristics (e.g., modifying the power characteristic can turn an accessory off or on. User 340(1) may be a resident of home environment 206 and by crossing geo-fence 330, may trigger any preferred number of accessories that may include turning on lights (e.g., accessory 204(1)), opening a garage door (e.g., accessory 204(2)), unlocking one or more door locks (e.g., accessory 204(3)), setting a new temperature on a thermostat (e.g., accessory 204(4)), or the like))).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Richardson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first controller device, cause the first controller device to perform operations (Richardson [0125] discloses non-transitory readable media encoded with the program code may be packaged with a compatible electronic device, or the program code may be provided separately from electronic devices (e.g., via Internet download or as a separately packaged computer-readable storage medium).) comprising:
The rest of the limitations of claim 13 are rejected with rational similar to that of claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the second device is a tablet (Richardson, fig. 1, [0029] discloses a base station that communicates with accessories and that can be installed in a fixed location in environment 100, and one or more mobile remote control stations (e.g., a handheld or wearable device such as a mobile phone, tablet computer, smart watch, eyeglasses, etc.) that provide a user interface and communicate with the base station to effect control over accessories).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 13.
Regarding claim(s) 24-27, the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 28-31, the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 32 and 34-35, the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 9 and 11-12, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 36 and 38-39, the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 9 and 11-12, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 40 and 41, the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 15.
Claim(s) 10, 33 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 2018/0348718 A1), in view of Boss et al. (US 2008/0176578 A1), in view Sampson (US 2009/0253454 A1), further in view McLaughlin et al. (US 2018/0091326 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Richardson, Boss and Sampson disclose the controller device of claim 9, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to cause the controller device to determine third setting information that identifies at least one setting for a third device, the third device being outside the geographic area, the third device connected to the network.
McLaughlin discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to cause the controller device to determine third setting information that identifies at least one setting for a third device, the third device being outside the geographic area (Controllers 202(2) and 202(3)), the third device connected to the network (connected to network 208) (McLaughlin, [0039]; fig. 2, Controllers 202(2) and 202(3) are currently located outside local environment 206 but are to controlled accessories connected to a communication network 208 (e.g., the Internet); such controllers are said to be “remote” from accessories 204 and coordinator 210 and are used to determine settings of accessories outside of their geographic area. It is to be understood that controllers 202 can be mobile devices that are sometimes within local environment 206 and sometimes outside local environment 206).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richardson, Boss Sampson and McLaughlin because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for implementing and controlling the operation mode of mobile devices in a controlled environment/geo-fence.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by McLaughlin into the invention of Richardson, Boss and Sampson. The motivation would have been for resident device to automatically determine an accessory and/or corresponding accessory states for a scene and/or scene triggers based on historical patterns of use represented in the aggregated historical accessory state data, McLaughlin, [0003].
Regarding claim(s) 33 and 37, the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The following publications show the state of the art related to management of clients in a smart home.
Ridgill, II et al. (US 2021/0044929 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXON F DABIPI whose telephone number is (571)270-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/D.F.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights